Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:09:16 -0800, Xah Lee wrote: Personally, I think this whole issue of precedence in a programming language is over-rated. It seems to me that grouping of any non-trivial set of calculations should be done so as to remove any possible confusion as to intent. It is one more obstacle to accidental errors in logic, where you intend one thing, possibly overlook precedence, and get a strange result. Sure, mathematically it *should* go a particular way, and any programming language *should* follow that. Still... they don't, and since they don't it makes more sense to be really obvious what you meant to do. As someone pointed out, a programming language is for humans; computers don't need them. That being the case, it makes sense to keep things as clear as possible. -- It's OKAY -- I'm an INTELLECTUAL, too. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Detracters Remain Idiots After A Decade!
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:06:42 -0500, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote: > In , on 02/29/2012 >at 11:43 AM, Chiron said: > >>Sure, mathematically it *should* go a particular way, > > No. Mathematically it should go the way that it is defined to go. There > is nothing in Mathematics that either requires or prohibits infix > notation in programming languages, or even in Mathematical notation. > Yes. That (the mathematically defined way) is a particular way, is it not? >>it makes sense to keep things as clear as possible. > > Often infix notation with well thought out precedence is the clearest > way to go. RPN and the like have their place, but often are difficult > for real people to read. However, I wasn't specifically referring to infix/postfix/prefix or anything of that nature. I wasn't limiting my comment to lisp notation in particular, since what I said applies to any language. I was referring to the placement of parentheses (or other groupings) to indicate to *humans* what the intended sequence of events was. The problem with precedence is that it is not always clear how it will go. Different languages have different rules, some of which depart from the rules in mathematics. Some implementations of languages are buggy in this regard. Mathematically, and in any language with which I am familiar, the sequence: 2 + 6 / 3 will yield 4. It is unnecessary, but harmless, to write this as 2 + (6 / 3). A naive reader (or just a tired or hurried one) might come up with 8 / 3 if there aren't any parentheses. Whenever there is *any* possibility of ambiguity, I see no reason not to clarify. Back in the days when the way you wrote your code affected how it was compiled, it made sense to rely heavily on language-specific features, thus saving a few bytes. With gigabyte memories, gigahertz clock speeds, and optimizing compilers, the pressure to try to optimize by hand is gone. A few extra parentheses, or even breaking down a complex sequence of events into discrete, simpler ones, is no longer a costly luxury. A few extra variables, if they help clarity, aren't going to hurt anything. Let the machine do the grunt work. Pamper your readers (which in a few weeks or months might be you) and show exactly what you had in mind. That's all I'm saying. -- I'd just as soon kiss a Wookie. -- Princess Leia Organa -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots Af
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:10:48 -0500, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote: > ROTF,LMAO! You obviously don't have a clue as to what Mathematics means. > Free hint: it doesn't mean Arithmetic. You're as bigoted as Xah Lee, Hmm... maybe, instead of just ridiculing him, you could explain where he is mistaken. Of course, doing that is a *LOT* harder than just calling him a bigot. BTW, I happen to agree with you insofar as this poster not understanding the nature of mathematics. His comment reminds me of the article, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" (http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/transgress_v2/ transgress_v2_singlefile.html). Also known as the "Sokal Hoax." -- Boling's postulate: If you're feeling good, don't worry. You'll get over it. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:09:16 -0800, Xah Lee wrote: Xah, you won't grow even an inch taller by cutting others down. -- I joined scientology at a garage sale!! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots Af
On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 10:13:11 -0500, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote: > In , on 03/01/2012 >at 05:07 AM, Chiron said: > >>Hmm... maybe, instead of just ridiculing him, > > I'm treating him as he treats others. OK. > >>BTW, I happen to agree with you insofar as this poster not understanding >> the nature of mathematics. His comment reminds me of the article, >>"Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of >>Quantum Gravity" > > A brilliant piece of work. I greatly enjoyed it and the reaction to its > disclosure. What always gets me is how so many people criticized Sokal for doing it, instead of soundly condemning the editor for not bothering to verify what Sokal said. It's like the kid points out that the emperor has no clothes, so they shoot the kid. Of course, in real life, that's exactly what would happen, so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised... -- It is a hard matter, my fellow citizens, to argue with the belly, since it has no ears. -- Marcus Porcius Cato -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: New Science Discovery: Perl Detractors Remain Idiots After A Decade!
On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:53:30 -0500, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote: > In , on 03/02/2012 >at 02:17 PM, Chiron said: > >>What always gets me is how so many people criticized Sokal for doing it, > > Google for Omerta. It's common for whistle blowers to be chastised or > even persecuted. I agree that the criticism of Prof Sokal was > outrageous, but it was also predictable. Yeah, omerta... I'm familiar with it. Talk and you're dead, and they put a canary in your mouth (well, some folks do, anyway). But of course you're right - it's a milder form of omerta. It's just so misguided. Kill the messenger. Imprison the whistle-blower. -- Imitation is the sincerest form of plagiarism. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: are int, float, long, double, side-effects of computer engineering?
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:11:09 -0800, Xah Lee wrote: Yes. Why do you ask? Is this not obvious? Was this a rhetorical question? -- A girl with a future avoids the man with a past. -- Evan Esar, "The Humor of Humor" -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: are int, float, long, double, side-effects of computer engineering?
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 22:34:46 -0800, Xah Lee wrote: > while what you said is true, but the problem is that 99.99% of > programers do NOT know this. They do not know Mathematica. They've never > seen a Could you please offer some evidence to support this claim? Most of the programmers I've ever run into, were quite familiar with the notion that many aspects of their languages were artifacts of hardware limitations. You don't need Mathematica to figure out that (10.0 * 0.1) - 1.0 doesn't often equal 0.0. The moment you try such comparisons with floats, you figure it out. Oh, granted - the *first* time you try it, you might spend days trying to understand what's wrong. But having done that, you will never, ever fail to understand about the evils of computer engineering. Anyway, most programmers probably get burned like this early on, if they forget that numeric representations in most languages are inaccurate. They don't need Mathematica to help them understand. BTW, for those who don't have access to Mathematica, I highly recommend sagemath. I have no way of making a comparison between the two (I have no access to Mathematica), but sagemath is mature, useful, and fast. -- You will be singled out for promotion in your work. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is Programing Art or Science?
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 01:27:16 -0700, Xah Lee wrote: > ãIs Programing Art or Scienceã Why is this question important? -- You are confused; but this is your normal state. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Is Programing Art or Science?
On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 03:33:24 -0400, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote: > If the term "art" is good enough for Knuth it's good enough for me. I think that may be the most intelligent comment so far... -- Some rise by sin and some by virtue fall. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
